The New Global Order
The disintegration of Soviet Union, end of cold war and onset of globalization heralded a new global order. It was marked by the emer-gence of unipolar world led by the USA and the convincing victory ideology of Neo-liberal capitalism, what Francis Fukuyama calls the ‘end of history’. The US and its Western allies were strategically placed to shape and steer the political and economic domains of the emerging global order. The global military hold of these actors was further streng-thened with the continuous expan-sion and modernization of their mili-tary alliance under the banner of NATO. The erstwhile global adver-sary, reconstituted as Russia was successfully co-opted by the US in the new global economic and security architecture. The new global order had far reaching consequences for other nations too as this resulted in configuration and reconfiguration of their bilateral and multilateral enga-gements. The global powers have global interests as well as global liabilities, which entails global com-mitment of resources and con-sequential global constraints. This is what happened with the US and its allies as they got successively entang-led in various regional conflicts from Iraq to Afghanistan. This was done to launch global fight against terror and make the world safer for democracy and human rights.
The Rise of Asia : Emergence of Asian Nations as Global Players
Meanwhile, globalization and liberalization opened new opportuni-ties for the emerging Asian Econo-mies. China liberalized its economy in early 1980s and moved on the track of fast export led growth. India followed suit in early 1990s and has been registering an average growth of 7-8 per cent for last 20 years or so. The so called Asian Tigers-Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, South Korea achieved impressive economic growth in 1990s. Japan was already a technological and economic power-house and it continued to be so under the globalization also. Besides opportunities offered by the process of globalization, two other factors were also crucial in their rapid eco-nomic growth. First, the relative peace and political stability immensely contributed to this growth. Second, these nations downplayed their dis-putes and gave primacy to economic engagements in the form of trade, investment, economic and technolo-gical collaborations. Asia, geographi-cally the largest continent, consists of 48 countries and houses 60 per cent of the global population. In terms of global nominal GDP, Asia is third largest economy after North America and Europe. However, in terms of Purchasing Power Parity (PPP), Asia has the highest GDP in the world. The five largest economies of Asia in term of size in descending order are : China, Japan, India, South Korea and Indonesia. All of them as members of G-20 are the leading players in the process of management and reform of international financial system.
The economic rise of these Asian countries was gradually reflected in their bilateral and multilateral enga-gements and their role in global affairs. India reconfigured its strategic relations with the USA and launched Look East Policy to expand economic, security and cultural engagement in East Asia which was largely neg-lected during the cold war era. China and Japan, already well placed in South-East Asia expanded their investment in Africa and Latin America. Thus, from Indian Ocean to Pacific Ocean, the entire region of Asia moved towards economic cooperation and integration in last 20 years or so. A slew of regional organizations like SAARC, ASEAN, East Asia Summit, ARF, BIMSTEC, Mekong-Ganga Cooperation, APEC, IOR-ARC buttressed and facilitated the ongoing cooperation among Asian countries at various levels.
In the global arena, the major Asian countries are poised to play a leading role in the shaping and management of global financial and political architecture. The G-20 group, which was elevated to the summit level format in 2008 in the wake of global financial crisis, is billed as successor of G-8, the rich nations club, in near future. The G-20 has the mandate for the global financial and economic management. It consists of twenty leading economies of the world, out of which six leading members are from Asia- India, China, Japan, South Korea, Indonesia, and Saudi Arabia. “A changed world order is upon us,” Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore’s Prime Minister, said in Washington last year. He further reiterated that it is time for Asia to use its stronger voice to take a more prominent role in this new world order. The progression from the Western-dominated G8 to a more inclusive G20, with meaningful posi-tions for leading Asian economies, rightly reflects the shift to a new equilibrium in which Asia has much greater weight.
According to the estimates made by the experts from the leading finan-cial company, the Goldman Sachs in 2007, India, China, Russia and Brazil, which have joined to gather under the banner of the BRIC, shall be the largest economies of the world by the years 2050 and they would surpass the combined economies of the USA and the European Union. China is already a permanent member of the UN Security Council and two Asian nations—India and Japan are the strong contender for the permanent membership of the Security Council. It should also be noted that because of their size, population and econo-mic strength, India, China and Japan have been playing leading role, for last few years, in the major global issues such as climate change negotiations, international trade negotia-tions (Doha Round), terrorism, disar-mament, human rights protection, maritime security and global peace and stability. A related but important factor in contributing to the economic might of the Asian nations has been the ongoing global financial crisis for last three years and their response to it. While the crisis originated in the US and impacted the Western countries, the leading Asian economies like China and India were least affec-ted due to their large domestic mar-kets and relatively weak integration with the global financial architecture.
‘Rise of Asia’ : A House Divided
The notion of ‘Rise of Asia’ in the Post-cold war era underlines the increasingly sustained role and importance of some of the leading Asian countries like India, China, Japan and so called Asian Tigers in the shaping and management of contemporary global economic and political architecture. However, the phenomenon of ‘Rise of Asian Coun-tries’ and the notion of ‘Rise of Asia’ are two different things. The missing link is the idea of ‘Asianness’ and lack of synergy among them in the process of their rise. Even often claimed ‘peace full rise’ of China is more problematic to Asia than to outside world.
The ongoing debate on the ‘Rise of Asia’ is the second in the series of such discourse. The first such debate originated after the World War II when many Asian countries were liberated from the yoke of colonia-lism. Indian leader Nehru evoked the spirit of ‘Asian Solidarity’ through series of interactive measures like Asian Relations Conferences (1947 and 1949, Delhi) and Bandung Con-ference (1955, Indonesia). The sub-sequent history of Asia is instructive to demonstrate as to how the idea of ‘Asian Solidarity’ petered out and the synergy in their growth and rise became inverted at a time when it was needed more. However Asian countries moved ahead with conflict-ing orientations. In last fifty years, instead of looking at each other, they have looked upon each other.
This past experience has condi-tioned the ongoing process of rise of Asian countries in the contemporary world, which equally suffers from lack of synergy and unity of purpose and direction. The absence of synergy has domestic, regional and global dimensions. While India and China have shown impressive growth in recent years, they still have largest number of poor people in the world. Chinese liberalized economy is surg-ing amidst authoritarian and highly centralized political structure. Both China and India are engaged in competition for influence in South Asia, South-East Asia and Africa. Due to military and economic rise of China, Japan’s dependence on the USA has further deepened.
There are at least four sets of factors which undermine the rise of Asia as a collective entity. These factors are : the strategic competition and rivalry among the leading nations of Asia; bilateral disputes and trust deficit among them; conflicting and diverse nature of economic and political system and related domestic problems; and strategic interference of leading external actors. The indivi-dual as well as combined impacts of these factors are enormous and far reaching as they are deeply entren-ched in the history of Asia and have conditioned the external behavior and orientations of the regional actors for long time. These factors have the potential to surpass the faint idea of Asianness or Asian Solidarity. Thus the idea of the ‘rise of Asia’ is nothing more than the rise of some Asian countries as is the case of rise of other countries in other continents.
The emerging strategic scenario in Asia involving China, Japan, India and other junior partner presents a picture of competition and rivalry among them. While most of the South-East nations including Japan are wary of China’s military rise and presence in the region, China has tried to develop close military ties with Pakistan and North Korea to balance the India’s growing military and economic presence in the region, which is largely encouraged by the ASEAN members and Japan. In South Asia, China has gradually expanded its influence much to the chagrins of India. Chinese strategy of ‘String of Pearls’ to encircle India has raised security concerns among Indian policy-makers. Both India and China are neck to neck involved in Africa to expand their economic and political ties, though China claims that there is enough space in the world for both to expand to gather.
Secondly, the major rising nations of Asia have bilateral disputes and problems among themselves, which weakens their collective identity and gives scope for external interference. Thus, India and Pakistan have a major historical dispute on Kashmir, India and China have a long drawn boundary dispute, China has terri-torial disputes with Japan and other neighboring countries and both Koreas are in perpetual tension over their historical differences. India, in spite of her best efforts, has not succeeded in resolving differences with her neighbours like Nepal, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. More than the bilateral disputes, the worrisome factor is the rising trust deficit among the leading regional players.
Thirdly, though the countries of the region share long cultural bonds, mediated by Buddhism, Hinduism and Islamic traditions, yet their recent encounters in last 50 years or so have not been synergic and harmonious. If China operates the largest communist structure in the world, India claims to be the largest democracy in the globe. Though the idea of Peaceful co-existence has been advocated long back in Asia, the divergence in the economic and political systems poses a challenge for cooperative regiona-lism. If we leave the entire region of the West Asia, still, there are non-democratic regimes in Pakistan, Myanmar, and North Korea. A large number of Asian countries have suffered political instability in the past and are still prone to such threats. The threats of terrorism, separatism, extremism, Naxalism-Maoism, religious fundamentalism, serious human rights violations, drug-trafficking and piracy have spread their tentacles in the region, which undermine the capacities of regional players to play a larger role in the global affairs.
In spite of impressive economic growth in the region in last two decades, a strange but true fact is that two-third of the world’s desperately poor live in India. According to the estimates of the Asian Development Bank, 620 million people in Asia are still living on less than one US dolor per day. The number of the poor people would be more than one billion, if we raise the poverty line to two US dollar per day. Along with the problem of poverty, the rising unemployment, food insecurity and burgeoning population may create potential threat to peace and stability in the region. In this scenario, the need for a strategy of inclusive growth and drastic reforms in governance in the region may pose a critical challenge in future. The internal economic and political challenges act as an obstacle in the global rise of Asia.
Fourthly, the complex interplay of national, regional and global factors in Asia and its historical conditioning and experience, have created fertile ground for the inter-ference and influence of external actors in the region. Since the end of World War II in 1945, the US has been a Resident Power in South-East Asia. It has developed close military ties and strategic partnership with Japan, South Korea, Philippines, and Australia. The presence of the US Asia-Pacific Command in the region is a critical factor in the regional security. In the beginning of 2011, in the wake of military tensions between South Korea and North Korea, the US held joint naval exercise with South Korea in the area adjacent to North Korea. The US is acting as security guarantor in this region, a fact immensely disliked by China. The US has recently succeeded in cultivating strategic partnership with India and is encouraging India to a larger role in East Asia with the strategic purpose of counterbalancing China. China understands this game and as a response, has tried to rope in Russia, Pakistan and North Korea in the emerging security architecture in the region. Pakistan is critically placed in the security design as long as the US led NATO forces are present in Afghanistan and the Taliban terrorists are not tamed and peace and stability is restored in that country.
The foregoing analysis demo-nstrates that some of the leading nations of Asia like China, India, Japan, South Korea and Indonesia have displayed impressive economic and technological growth in last two decades or so and hence have emer-ged as leading players in the global political and economic affairs. These countries are poised to remain as leading global economies of the world. This has given rise to the idea of ‘Rise of Asia’, which is contested as the notion of Asia lacks a collective identity and the rise of Asian nations is deprived of require synergy due to number of national, regional and global factors. Still the global politics continuous to be the game of power and influence. The economic strength is not synonymous with power, at best, this is just one element of power spectrum in global affairs. Thus, the presently unfolding ‘Asian Drama’ to use the Gunnar Myrdal’s phrase, may be termed as economic rise of Asian nations rather than the ‘Rise of Asia’.
Posts
